A Practical Experiment to Observe the Direction of Time. by Kenneth M. Sasaki.

Dear Ken,

Although I consider myself relativist in the standard way, I am happy to see that the ether theory is still pursued. I believe that from time to time older theories that were rejected need to be reconsidered, especially when, as it seems to be the case of your research, they may provide predictions that can distinguish them from the mainstream theory. It is good to have different alternative interpretations of data, like in QM, to avoid the fixation in a paradigm.

Best wishes and good luck in your research,

Cristi Stoica

“Flowing with a Frozen River”,

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/322

Dear Cristi:

Thanks for the kind words. We ether theorists usually are treated as crackpots, so it is nice to encounter people with open minds. I plan on having a look at your essay soon.

To anyone who happens to read this:

A critical analysis of my work would be most welcome. My work is most falsifiable, at the level of discussion in the essay; so if there is a problem, a competent analysis will establish it beyond question. If anyone can find an error, I would be most grateful; and if you can't, tell some friends.

Take care,

Ken.

Ken,

Sorry it took me a while to get back to you about your essay...

I think it's unfortunate that you chose to associate your theory with the word "ether", because that's sort of like a dirty word in physics, with most physicists dismissing it as either a dead and buried obsolete concept, or else as simply crackpot.

From a cursory look at your essay, it seems that you're interested in questions about "preferred frame" (or what you called "ether frame") in General Relativity (GR). This is actually not a trivial question in GR, as one can see from the discussions about Newton's rotating bucket, or the relationship between Mach's principle and GR (see e.g. Wheeler and Ciufolini's book " Gravitation and Inertia"). I tend to think that such a preferred frame can be defined relatively with respect to all other matter in the universe, so there should be no need to postulate an ether...

This said, I don't believe GR to be the final word for a satisfactory theory of space-time, if only because GR neither takes into account nor explains quantum phenomena...

In any case, good luck with your research!

Dear Chi Ming:

Ether - that darkest place, into which relativists dare not gaze; for if they did, they would no longer be relativists.

I would like to thank you for undertaking to understand as much of my essay as you have; but I know full well how the term "ether" is generally held, in the physics community; and I think that the prejudice, against ether theories and "rest frames", is at the heart of why the biggest problems of theoretical physics had remained unsolved for so long.

You are right in that I do use the GR formalism, and that I recognize a "preferred frame"; but I hate the application of "preferred frame" to what is really a "rest frame". It recognizes that there is a "special" frame, but suggests that this frame is not reeeeeally special; it is just preferrrrred. That way General *Relativity* can still be "right"; since there is still a sort of relativity of inertial frames, if only in words.

The name "Ether Theory", for a theory that recognizes a rest frame, goes back over a hundred years, even beyond the Ether Theory of Lorentz and Poincaré, which is the flat-space theory I show to be correct. To not call the Ether Theory of Lorentz and Poincaré an Ether Theory is a capitulation to ignorance, and this I refuse.

I think that "preferred frame" is a euphemism that has come into fashion, because many physicists cannot bear the reality that we ether theorists have been right all along. If you call someone a crackpot, and it turns out that they are right and you are wrong; then you are really the crackpot. And that is a long fall, for people that have lived in as high esteem as have the relativists. But that is the danger of calling someone a crackpot; if you do, you had better be right. (Of course, not all relativists are guilty of calling ether theorists crackpots.)

But I take it, from your reply, that you found no error in my results. I submit to you that you should find this compelling. You say that your look at my paper was only "cursory". Please, give it some more thought; and keep in mind the big picture. You have been looking at a result that would be, to say the least, quite significant. If you can't find an error, you might be only the second person on the planet to fully realize something very worth your time.

And as I stated above, if you can find an error, I would be most grateful. If you can't, tell some friends; maybe they can find an error. If no one can find an error,...maybe its right.

Finally, note that I do not "postulate" an ether, which, as you know, is simply a state of rest, only with respect to which light travels with the same speed, in all directions; I show that this must exist - relativity is not viable.

Take care,

Ken.

Dear Chi Ming:

Having reread what I wrote, I realized that one thing sounds not as intended. I stated, "I would like to thank you for undertaking to understand as much of my essay as you have; but..." The "but" makes it sound like I am not thanking you, which I did not intend. Sorry about that. Thank you for reading the essay.

Take care,

Ken.